rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think it's a bit misleading to say that socialists are on the side of the workers against management, most of whom are workers themselves, at least as I understand the term. It's workers against owners.
There's an article reporting an interview with Brand in The Times today. Some of the fatuous questions they ask him, although they don't surprise me, make me want to throw something at them.Would he miss his iPod if giant corporations were dismantled? As if a socialist society would turn back technology 50 years and wouldn't be able to make high-tech gadgets.If he supports the community, why does he live in a big house with a chauffeur and not on an estate? As if we didn't all have to live in capitalism and do the best we can for ourselves.What lack of imagination they show!
Part of the problem is that people are wrapped up in their everyday lives, trying to get through the next day, and mostly don't want to assimilate big ideas, especially when they think they might 'lose all they've worked for' when private property gets abolished. The idea of socialism either seems absurd or too invasive. It makes people insecure, and they back away.But it will happen, one day the tide will turn and people will wonder how on earth they could have been so stupid for not seeing the bleedin' obvious. Just keep plugging away.
It depends greatly on whose version of history you like, but, Utopia apart, wasn't More just an arch-conservative who felt insecure about the changes afoot? Principled he might have been, but he was, after all, responsible for a fair number of torturings of those nasty heretics.The fictionalised Mantel view is poles apart from the fictionalised Robert Bolt view. How close can we get to the 'true' view, if there is one?
They are having a 'democracy season' at present. How important Magna Carta was, etc. David Starkey interviewed a couple of people who said that our democratic rights won since Magna Carta are being eroded by the laws against terrorism. Then Starkey made some comment to the effect that our liberties need restricting when it comes to maintaining order.That's probably about as democratic as the BBC will get.Ho-hum.
SocialistPunk wrote:But another song I like by Black Sabbath is more appropriate to us lot, and the last line in the second verse sums up Dylan fairly well. But I guess Dylan is all grown-up and has left the politics of idealistic youth behind and focuses on the practicalities of the real world.That's a common problem – so many of these types "mellow with age" and see revolution or even protest against the status quo as the preserve of rebellious youth. When will they ever learn?
Ozymandias wrote:rodshaw wrote:Any film that acknowledges the distinction between proper socialism and what we are generally told is socialism/communism, and can present socialism clearly and convincingly as highly desirable. Not in some sci-fi film set in the distant future, but in a realistic fiction set in the present. In short, a film that makes people say, "We can have that now and we want it!"But we are never going to see a film like that are we? You can sneer all you want smart arse.
I beg your pardon? Who are you directing your smart arse comment to?
As socialists we have little time for the Great Man Theory of History but have there been any truly great men or women? If so, what defines greatness, and what makes some people stand out? Or is greatness simply not in our vocabulary?
Any film that acknowledges the distinction between proper socialism and what we are generally told is socialism/communism, and can present socialism clearly and convincingly as highly desirable. Not in some sci-fi film set in the distant future, but in a realistic fiction set in the present. In short, a film that makes people say, "We can have that now and we want it!"
SardaI quite agree. We in the Socialist Party say that socialism is intelligible to the vast majority – otherwise there'd be no point advocating it – so I think postings like #1 have to be taken for what they are – to be discussed by those who enjoy discussing such things (not me), and not to be thought of as essential reading for all.
On the bright side, a recent survey has revealed that only 1 in 4 people in Britain would be prepared to go to war for 'their' country. A university professor of war studies thinks this is largely to do with people being less willing to trust authority and what their governments tell them.A step in the right direction, at least, though the global average of people who'd be willing to go to war is apparently 60 percent.
Someone I argued with (a normal working class chap) told me that not only did he not agree with my idea of socialism, but he would actively oppose such a society being established.I think that most people who have heard the case for socialism and rejected it (and I'm not convinced there are that many) are doing so because they know their world view belongs to the majority and they don't really think there's any chance of it happening. Or if they do, they see it as a threat to their lifestyles. If socialism were to gain significantly more support (presumably from people other than the type described) their views would start to change too.
ALB wrote:This is what we mean when we use the term, but are we sure it is what most of those who read or hear us understand us to mean?Most definitely not. We are at odds with the vast majority in our interpretation of the term 'working class'. Most people don't see the world as simply divided into working class and capitalist. They see things as being far more complicated than that, with at least three classes and various shades of grey in between, because they don't get the essential political distinction.So unless we always qualify the term whenever we use it, people will mostly misunderstand what we mean. Not their fault, really.Maybe we should switch to using 'producer' and 'parasite' instead.
